Your dumbfuck argument 1: wins-losses is a team stat not a player stat. I proved the two aren't mutually exclusive and wins-losses can be both and is both, either in football with QB's records as a starter, baseball for pitchers or even hockey with goalies. Not to mention is a coaching stat. You lost on that one. Your dumbfuck argument 2: wins-loss cannot be a player stat because no player is solely responsible for wins-losses. I discredited that position that being solely responsible for the stat is a required element of a player stat. Specifically for QB, where a QB isn't solely responsible for completions, yards, TD's, so it is a completely irrelevant criteria of a stat and doesn't determine team or player stat. You lose again. Your dumbfuck argument 3: because Geno and Fitz have differing individual stats it must mean they will impact wins-losses differently. That's a complete dumbfuck argument when we have empirical data to the contrary that despite their differing individual stats their resulting win-loss percentage are both 40%, so there differing individual stats don't result in differing win-loss results.
Stats don't predict, they simply show the likely outcome. You're welcome for simply showing you have no concept of what stats are and how they are used. A QB that averages 12 TD's and 5 INTS is more likely to throw 12 TD's and 5 INTS than a QB that averages 22 TD's and 16 INTS. There's no mysterious prediction in that at all. But keep digging yourself a hole of stupidity. Fitz's stats show that performing at his averages, even if those are personally better than Geno, will only equate to winning 40% of the games just like Geno. Nothing Nostradamus about that.
Yes - and a QB who throws 12 TD's and 5 INT's is more likely to help your team win games than a QB who throws 5 TD's and 12 INT's even if they both have only been on 8 win teams in the past. I can't understand it for you though.
I got a warning from the mods for our conversation earlier today. I have no idea why you apparently didn't, but since you have nothing new, useful or reasonable to say, have a nice weekend.
Yes and no. It is one of the verb forms used in describing how someone or something repeats something insistently and or redundantly. It is related to persevere, but is really based on the particular meaning of perseverate, which goes beyond "persevering" at something to the point where it describes a psychological condition, as in the pathological, persistent repetition of a word, gesture, or act, often associated with brain damage or schizophrenia. So in short I used it appropriately.
Likely, but that has nothing to do with anything I posted. Good job defeating your own Strawman I suppose but it wasn't my argument you were addressing with this post.
Just a quick question. Say QB1 averages 300 yards per game, 2 TDs and 0 INTs and a QB rating of 98. Team averages 26 pts per game. Defense gives up 350 passing yards per game, plus 100 rushing yards and allows opposing offenses to score 35 pts per game. Team goes 0 - 16. That gives the QB a w/l record of 0-16. Does that mean the QB sucks ?
your question has no value. It's an argument to extreme logical fallacy. I could propose the mirror image of that question -- what if a QB averages 120 yards per game, 1 TD and 2 INT's per game. The Offense averages 10 points per game. But the Defense gives up 100 yards per game, 50 yards rushing, and only gives up 9 points a game. Team goes 16-0. Does that mean the QB is great? The only aspect of it that has any value worth discussing, and which is a point I brought up, is 16 games is not enough of a sample size to draw a conclusion. Fitzpatrick, on the other hand, has started 88 games, a large enough sample size to draw a conclusion of his ability in regards to his careers .356 winning percentage.
My question has plenty of value. It illustrates the point that your absolutist position on this is flawed. W/L record can show someone to be a good/bad QB, but it's highly situational. Some QBs just get stuck on really bad teams and their W/L record doesn't accurately reflect their abilities. Dan Fouts was a pretty good QB in his day. He has a record of 86-84-1 as a starter. Many/most consider Boomer Esiason to have been a pretty decent QB. His career record as a starter is 80-93. Carson Palmer is considered to be a pretty good QB and his career record is 70-73. Drew Bledsoe was 98-95. Warren Moon was 102-101. Matt Stafford is 35-42. Hell, Joe Namath was 62-63-4.
my position was never absolutist and based solely on win-loss. try again. an argument to extreme never has value; that's the very definition of a logical fallacy -- an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. your hypothetical lacked both validity and soundness; it has no value.
Fitzpatrick has barely average careers stats and a well below average losing record. His impact on wins-losses is evident.
Yes, but he's been improving lately. A lot. He was doing really well before he broke his leg. That's probably why the Jets were interested in him.
Actually Jetblue, the type of argument is known as Reductio ad absurdam and it's not a fallacy. In fact, it's a great method for exposing the fallacies in other statements and it is a well established logical method. Here's some info about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum First, I developed a construct to show that a "good QB" could have a 0-16 record if his team's defense absolutely sucks. If a QB is putting up 26 pts per game with no turnovers and he has a 0-16 record, that record doesn't accurately reflect his ability as a QB. You then put forth a "mirror argument" where a bad QB put up bad numbers, but his defense was insanely good resulting in a 16-0 record. This would again demonstrate that w-l record is not a valid way of judging a QB. You argued that it's too small a sample size. Fine, expand the same situation out to 3 years and 48 games. Same still applies. It's an example of a bad QB being propped up by a ridiculously good defense. I then listed 7 "good" NFL QBs who have bad records, either right around or below .500. Their existence demonstrates that w-l record is not a valid method for judging QBs. I mean, 3 of those guys are HoF QBs, Fouts, Moon and Namath. BTW, just to be clear, I'm not saying that you are wrong about Fitz overall. I'm just saying that simply citing his w-l record isn't a good argument.
A more true comparison would be his winning percentage vs. the winning percentage of the same team in years in which he did not play in every game. If a team truly sucks then they just suck and can't all be put on the QB. In the 5 seasons in which Fitzpatrick played a significant amount of time but not the entire season (08, 09, 10, 13 and 14), he compiled a 23-34-1 record or .403 winning percentage. By comparison when he was out those same teams went 7-19 or .269 winning percentage. Not great winning percentage by any means but it is clear he made the teams somewhat better.
